Atheism Issues

[BlaineTog]

Sometimes, ultimatums are reasonable.

Only with someone you have something over, with someone you’re somehow better than. God does not fit that description.

 

[Mersenne]

?

You might really want to think about the issue some more. Claiming that god provides evidence for his existence takes away free will is absurd on it’s face. I just provided an example as to why and it would be good for you to ponder it. Giving people information to help them come to a reasonable conclusion is not take away someone’s free will.

Not to answer your question with a question, but do you “decide” that 1 + 1 = 2, or do you merely recognize the obviousness of the fact?

You choose to believe it, it may be very obvious, but there are those who would reject it as being true. (this is assuming you believe in free will at all, for the sake of arguement)

For many things, it’s not. In the case of whether or not they choose God, most definitely.

why?

First, they can make mistakes. Second, as mentioned above, using the word “choice” with regard to logic is odd. Third, decisions can be made based on any of a number of reasons, logic being only one of them. Fourth, it’s 3 in the morning.

Using choice with regard to any belief is odd, but if you’re going to apply it to any belief, it applies to logic just as well. You can choose to follow logic or not.

how is “1+1=3” an error
but “god doesn’t exist based on ockam’s razor” a choice?

both are conclusions based on logic

Because he glows.

Interesting logic, I guess you didn’t have free will about the issue. Does that mean you go to hell now?

 

[BlaineTog]

You might really want to think about the issue some more. Claiming that god provides evidence for his existence takes away free will is absurd on it’s face. I just provided an example as to why and it would be good for you to ponder it. Giving people information to help them come to a reasonable conclusion is not take away someone’s free will.

I draw your attention to the example of Doubting Thomas. It would have been better if he had believed based off just what the Apostles said.

Your counter example is not applicable since God is different from a mortal father.

Interesting logic, I guess you didn’t have free will about the issue. Does that mean you go to hell now?

Why would it mean I go to hell?

 

[Aleii]

It is for God. For God to do that, he would be harming your ability to choose, for his splendor itself is infinitely persuasive. This doesn’t make it impossible to choose something other than him, just harder, and exactly how hard the choice should be for each person is variable and controlled by God, presumably for many and varied reasons.

BTW, you seem to think “more contact” is some magic formula to make everything better, but you ignore the reality that the angels were in the very presence of God and that didn’t stop 1/3 of them from turning away from him.

Voci, you talk about how angels still were able to choose even with contact. So Blaine, if I were to choose to ask God to help me understand, to help me believe, how is it eroding my ability to “choose” to believe in God if he shows up? Haven’t I already made my “choice” by asking in the first place? Please state your answer keeping Voci’s post in mind.

On a related tangent, I can not choose to believe in a being that I can not see the logic in. Can you believe that your dog has the ability to fly? Can you believe that a table is really a blueberry? Can you choose to believe Santa really will come this year and give you gifts? I can’t force myself to believe any of these things. I have tried for many many years, in anguish, to force myself to believe in Catholicism. It would make my life much easier if I did believe. It simply can’t be done. Others have alluded to faith as a gift from God. If faith is something that I have asked for repeatedly while going through the motions, but have not received from God, why should I be punished like a criminal, when I have tried to live as a good person, and failed a test simply because of lack of understanding, which god could easily fix? What is the point of this game? Why can’t God just lay out the facts and then put us those of us who want, in heaven? There is no sin there, yet free will is not taken away there. So what is the point of throwing us on earth for 75 years of struggle? Why not just teach us right from the start?
Tim Kirchoff:

My dad tells me to go get my brothers when it’s dinnertime. He could go and get them himself, but he tells me to go and do it. If my brothers don’t come even though I’ve called them, they don’t get dinner or dessert. If I don’t tell anyone it’s time to eat, then I’m going to be punished.

Just because my dad doesn’t want to go and get everyone himself and delegates the task to me, he’s not a deadbeat by any means.

Close. Let me fill in a missing part of the analogy. Along with you telling your brothers that it is time to eat in the kitchen, where the real God is there waiting, your other brother tells them that dinner is actually not ready yet and they should wait. A sister comes up and says that dad said he burned the lasagna so they are going out to eat and that they should head outside to the car in the front yard. Another brother comes and tells them that dad said they are eating outside tonight to enjoy nature and that everyone should head outside to the backyard. Another brother comes and states that dad forgot today is the block party and that they need to come help set up on the street. Another brother says that their neighbor invited them to a surprise party/dinner for dad so they should go out the side door to the neighbor’s house to wait for him there. Another states that they misbehaved earlier so they need to go to bed and not have dinner at all tonight.

See the problem? Lets say you have 1 minute to choose where to go before you die. All your other brothers seem credible, so you don’t have time to explore every place fully to see which is truthful. So who do you believe when they all seem viable?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Close. Let me fill in a missing part of the analogy. Along with you telling your brothers that it is time to eat in the kitchen, where the real God is there waiting, your other brother tells them that dinner is actually not ready yet and they should wait. A sister comes up and says that dad said he burned the lasagna so they are going out to eat and that they should head outside to the car in the front yard. Another brother comes and tells them that dad said they are eating outside tonight to enjoy nature and that everyone should head outside to the backyard. Another brother comes and states that dad forgot today is the block party and that they need to come help set up on the street. Another brother says that their neighbor invited them to a surprise party/dinner for dad so they should go out the side door to the neighbor’s house to wait for him there. Another states that they misbehaved earlier so they need to go to bed and not have dinner at all tonight.

See the problem? Lets say you have 1 minute to choose where to go before you die. All your other brothers seem credible, so you don’t have time to explore every place fully to see which is truthful. So who do you believe when they all seem viable?

a) I have no sisters, and only four brothers. There’s one more message than I have siblings

b) there’s no way we’re eating outside this time of year

c) there is also no way there is a block party on my block

d) I don’t even like lasagna

 

[ateista]

a) I have no sisters, and only four brothers. There’s one more message than I have siblings

b) there’s no way we’re eating outside this time of year

c) there is also no way there is a block party on my block

d) I don’t even like lasagna

Let’s nominate this “answer” as the lamest cop-out of the year!

 

[VociMike]

Voci, you talk about how angels still were able to choose even with contact. So Blaine, if I were to choose to ask God to help me understand, to help me believe, how is it eroding my ability to “choose” to believe in God if he shows up? Haven’t I already made my “choice” by asking in the first place? Please state your answer keeping Voci’s post in mind.

It depends on the sincerity of your search. One of the surprising things I discovered in moving from cradle Catholic to unbeliever back to committed Catholic is that God is nowhere if you’re not looking for him, and everywhere if you are. Same world, just a new way of seeing.

On a related tangent, I can not choose to believe in a being that I can not see the logic in.

And you think it’s more logical to believe the universe just came into existence on its own? I’m sorry, I can’t fathom that anybody could consider that to be more logical. At best one might say that none of the possibilities are logical. In which case, since we know the universe does exist, then there’s a flaw in that person’s understanding of what is logical.

Besides, in your profile you ID yourself as agnostic. But if you can’t see the logic of God’s existence how can you claim to be agnostic?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Let’s nominate this “answer” as the lamest cop-out of the year!

Yeah, I was headed out the door as I was typing it, so I couldn’t really finish. Point is, we can at least try to figure out which messenger is correct. I know my dad never makes lasagna, if there was a block paty, I definitely woud have known beforehand, and it’s way too cold out to eat outside.

But the question must become, where do all these people get their messages from? They can’t all be right, and with all the possibilities, one of them must be at least pretty close. Based on my own knowledge, I could deduce that I should go up to the kitchen for dinner.

 

[ateista]

And you think it’s more logical to believe the universe just came into existence on its own? I’m sorry, I can’t fathom that anybody could consider that to be more logical. At best one might say that none of the possibilities are logical. In which case, since we know the universe does exist, then there’s a flaw in that person’s understanding of what is logical.

There are two possibilities:

1. The universe simply exists.
2. The universe was created by god. God simply exists.

The second assumption does not add any understanding, therefore it sould be discarded as per Occam’s razor. As a matter of fact, it makes rational explanation impossible. The “goddidit” is not an explanation, it simply states that explanation is forever out of reach. Its translation: “an unknowable being, using unknowable means made it somehow happen”.

 

[ateista]

Point is, we can at least try to figure out which messenger is correct.

You cannot figure it out. Because you only have the messengers, and no first hand information.

But the question must become, where do all these people get their messages from? They can’t all be right, and with all the possibilities, one of them must be at least pretty close.

It does not follow that one of them “must” be close. Much more likely that they are all wrong. And you can only rely of “what feels” the most accurate messenger, in other words, you are engaged in “cherry picking”. Nothing inherently wrong with it, but you should face the fact.

Based on my own knowledge, I could deduce that I should go up to the kitchen for dinner.

What is that “knowledge” you speak of? It is all wishful thinking.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

There are two possibilities:

1. The universe simply exists.
2. The universe was created by god. God simply exists.

The second assumption does not add any understanding, therefore it sould be discarded as per Occam’s razor. As a matter of fact, it makes rational explanation impossible. The “goddidit” is not an explanation, it simply states that explanation is forever out of reach. Its translation: “an unknowable being, using unknowable means made it somehow happen”.

Yes, it does add understanding. It makes more sense that a rational universe was created by a rational Being moreso than a rational universe just happens to exist.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

You cannot figure it out. Because you only have the messengers, and no first hand information.
Very well, we just have the messengers. I trust some of my brothers more than others

It does not follow that one of them “must” be close. Much more likely that they are all wrong. And you can only rely of “what feels” the most accurate messenger, in other words, you are engaged in “cherry picking”. Nothing inherently wrong with it, but you should face the fact.
That is more an extended anagogy to outside the dinner idea. There are so many religions out there (atheism included- I sincerely believe atheism is still a form of religion) that one of them has to be pretty close.

What is that “knowledge” you speak of? It is all wishful thinking.

this knowledge:

1. there’s no way we’re eating outside this time of year
2. there is also no way there is a block party on my block
3. I don’t even like lasagna

 

[ateista]

It depends on the sincerity of your search.

This would be very insulting, if taken at face value. On what gounds do you accuse every skeptic that their inquiry is insincere?

One of the surprising things I discovered in moving from cradle Catholic to unbeliever back to committed Catholic is that God is nowhere if you’re not looking for him, and everywhere if you are. Same world, just a new way of seeing.

That reminds me of the claims of Uri Geller. He insists that his sleight-of-hand magic is really attributable to paranormal events. If you are a skeptic, nothing points to that conclusion. But if you swallow his claim, then it will be a “proof” for the paranormal.

This is not how a proper experiment is conducted. One may make a hypothesis, and checks if the experiments will support or deny it. If they do not support it, the hypothesis is discarded or reworked.

A theologian (I cannot remember his name) once said: “The least thing you should do is to find evidence for God’s existence. You should accept God’s existence, and then you will be in the position for find evidence of God’s existence”.

 

[ateista]

Very well, we just have the messengers. I trust some of my brothers more than others,

That is your prerogative. But it is fully subjective, and means nothing to those who do not trust any of them.

That is more an extended anagogy to outside the dinner idea. There are so many religions out there (atheism included- I sincerely believe atheism is still a form of religion) that one of them has to be pretty close.

Atheism is the opposite of a religion. You may sincerely believe that it is, but that is neither here nor there. Any religion is based upon a belief that something “beyond” the natural universe exists.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Atheism is the opposite of a religion. You may sincerely believe that it is, but that is neither here nor there. Any religion is based upon a belief that something “beyond” the natural universe exists.

A religion is the motivation for living a particular way. Individual theological beliefs vary, but everyone has religion. For atheists, theology takes the form of secular humanism, relativism, etc.

Make sense?

 

[ateista]

Yes, it does add understanding. It makes more sense that a rational universe was created by a rational Being moreso than a rational universe just happens to exist.

Except that the universe is not “rational”. The label “rational” can only be attributed to a thought process, not to events of nature. Besides, what would be rational about a hurricane, a tsunami, or an earthquake? About a plague which indiscriminately kills everyone in its path? About a deluge or total lack of rain?

But be as it may, the existence of the universe is a given. No explanation for it is necessary.

 

[ateista]

A religion is the motivation for living a particular way. Individual theological beliefs vary, but everyone has religion. For atheists, theology takes the form of secular humanism, relativism, etc.

Make sense?

No it does not. The word you should have used is: “worldview”, not “religion”. To make up new meaning to existeing words just adds confusion, and prevents clarification. Please don’t do that.

 

[BlaineTog]

Voci, you talk about how angels still were able to choose even with contact. So Blaine, if I were to choose to ask God to help me understand, to help me believe, how is it eroding my ability to “choose” to believe in God if he shows up? Haven’t I already made my “choice” by asking in the first place? Please state your answer keeping Voci’s post in mind.

Ahem:
"Me:

For God to do that, he would be harming your ability to choose, for his splendor itself is infinitely persuasive. This doesn’t make it impossible to choose something other than him, just harder, and exactly how hard the choice should be for each person is variable and controlled by God, presumably for many and varied reasons.

Relevant parts bolded.

And perhaps this indecision, this murkiness is a way of preventing what happened to the angels. The Angels had a very good understanding of God, far greater than ours is. This brings the choice to an immediate, eternal head, whereas if the situation is layered in grays, the chance for salvation is lengthier and not immediately eternal.

If faith is something that I have asked for repeatedly while going through the motions, but have not received from God, why should I be punished like a criminal, when I have tried to live as a good person, and failed a test simply because of lack of understanding, which god could easily fix?

No one “fails” for a lack of understanding. That’s not how it works.

However, I can ask for you a glass of water a million times, but if I hold my cup upside down, you can’t give me any. I can ask you to come into my house a thousand times a day, but if I’ve locked my doors and covered my windows, you can’t get in without breaking and entering.

Why can’t God just lay out the facts and then put us those of us who want, in heaven?

That’s what he’s doing. That’s what the world is.

So what is the point of throwing us on earth for 75 years of struggle? Why not just teach us right from the start?

Teaching takes time, and there’s virtue in taking time to learn something. If I read through a wikipedia article on ants, I’ll learn something, but if I take a two-semester intensive class on it, I’ll know ants a lot better.

Humans are the only creatures to whom God has given the honor of being present for our own creation. That’s what the world is: a giant smithy for gods or devils, as we will it.

Let’s nominate this “answer” as the lamest cop-out of the year!

It’s actually a valid, if incomplete, answer. He’s taking what he knows of his dad and applying it to what his brothers and sister (or not-sister) are saying.

There are two possibilities:

1. The universe simply exists.
2. The universe was created by god. God simply exists.

The second assumption does not add any understanding, therefore it sould be discarded as per Occam’s razor. As a matter of fact, it makes rational explanation impossible. The “goddidit” is not an explanation, it simply states that explanation is forever out of reach. Its translation: “an unknowable being, using unknowable means made it somehow happen”.

Occam’s razor is a practical and scientific principle, but it has no place in philosophy. The complicated things may very well be true.

And God is not “unknowable,” not if he makes himself known.

Atheism is the opposite of a religion. You may sincerely believe that it is, but that is neither here nor there. Any religion is based upon a belief that something “beyond” the natural universe exists.

Atheism isn’t a religion, but it’s based on belief just as much as religion is.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Except that the universe is not “rational”. The label “rational” can only be attributed to a thought process, not to events of nature. Besides, what would be rational about a hurricane, a tsunami, or an earthquake? About a plague which indiscriminately kills everyone in its path? About a deluge or total lack of rain?

But be as it may, the existence of the universe is a given. No explanation for it is necessary.

But the physical laws of the universe do make sense. Gravity holds the planet together, the ocean currents and the gulf stream affect weather patterns… maybe rational isn’t the right word, but we can rationally understand the laws of the universe. the universe’s physical laws just make sense.

No it does not. The word you should have used is: “worldview”, not “religion”. To make up new meaning to existeing words just adds confusion, and prevents clarification. Please don’t do that.

I don’t think worldview is right, either.

Can you explain your motivation to continue living? Why do you want to stay alive? Why should any of us stay alive?

 

[ateista]

But the physical laws of the universe do make sense. Gravity holds the planet together, the ocean currents and the gulf stream affect weather patterns… maybe rational isn’t the right word, but we can rationally understand the laws of the universe. the universe’s physical laws just make sense.

Of course they do. But they just “are” what they are. There is no need to assume that they were “created”.

I don’t think worldview is right, either.

What is wrong with it? I am game to entertain a better one.

Can you explain your motivation to continue living? Why do you want to stay alive? Why should any of us stay alive?

I cannot speak for anyone else, only for myself. Personally, I enjoy living. I want to stay alive as long as I can, provided that my brain is in good working order, and my body can sustain itself. I take good care of both, exercise my brain and body and having a jolly good time while doing it. A few weeks ago my position in the company was “eliminated”, and I transformed it into a (somewhat) early retirement. What could be better?

Of course it would be wonderful if this life would not be the only one we have. I would be extremely happy to keep on living, maybe in another form… but it is so unlikely, that I am not going to waste time hoping for it. There is life before death, that we know. Let’s make the best of it.

Let me reiterate: I only speak for myself. My recipe may not be applicable to others. As the saying goes: “your milage may vary”.